People State New York v. Thomas Miguel

At the suppression hearing, defendant contended only that the statements in question should be excluded because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and that the eyewitness identification should be excluded because it was inherently unreliable. Both of these contentions were properly rejected below. Inasmuch as defendant failed to object to the admission of this evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (see United States v Crews, 445 U.S. 463; Dunaway v New York, 442 U.S. 200), the questions of the propriety of defendants detention and the admissibility of the resulting evidence are now beyond our limited power to review (People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; see CPL 470.05, subd 2; 470.35, subd 1).